It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
Hey Goggers;

As many of you know, we announced on last Friday that we are going to introduce regional pricing for 3 new games coming up on GOG.com soon. Looking at the amount of reactions (over 3,500 comments at this very moment), it is obvious that this change is making many of you guys worried. We must have failed to clearly explain why our pricing policy for (some) newer games will change and what this means as a matter of fact for our PC & MAC classic games, which account for over 80% of our catalogue.

To be honest, our announcement was a bit vague simply because our future pricing policy is not 100% set in stone yet and we were just worried to make any promises before it was. You know, GOG.com has been growing quickly (thanks to you!), and the more we grow, the more we are worried to make some of you guys disappointed. This is why we were so (over-)cautious with our announcement.

We should have just been upfront about why we've made these changes and what they mean for us in the future and what we're planning. So let's talk. To be clear: what I'm talking about below is our plan. It's a plan that we believe we can accomplish, but while it's what we want to do with GOG, it may change some before it actually sees the light of day. Please don’t blame me for talking open-heartedly today and telling you about the plans and pricing policy we want to fight for and eventually achieve. The below plans aren't sure. The only guarantee I can give you is that we’ll do our best to fight for gamers while still making sure GOG.com as a whole grows (because well, we still want to be around 50 years from now, you know!). So, enough for the introduction, let’s get things started.

Why does GOG.com need to offer newer games at all?

We've been in business for 5 years now, and we've signed a big percentage of all of the classic content that can be legally untangled. There are still some big companies left we're trying to bring into the GOG.com fold, like LucasArts, Microsoft, Take2 and Bethesda, but what classic titles will we sign in the future once we have those partners on-board? We need to sign newer games or else just fire everyone and keep selling the same limited catalog. Either we bring you “not so old” releases from 2010+ or brand-new AAA titles, because these will become classic games tomorrow. It’s as simple as that.

Also, well, we want to expand beyond just classic games, hence the fact we have been offering you brand-new indie releases for almost 2 years now. Why expanding? Well, obviously, because the more games we sell, the more legitimacy we have on the market and the more likely it is that we can achieve our mission: making all PC & MAC video games 100% DRM-free, whether classic or brand-new titles.

To be straightforward (excuse my French):DRM is shit-- we'll never have any of it. It treats legitimate customers like rubbish and pirates don't have to bother with it. It's bad for gamers, and it's also bad for business and our partners. We want to make it easy and convenient for users to buy and play games; rather than give piracy a try. Happy gamers equals a healthy gaming industry; and this is what we fight for. Anyway, I am sure you well know our opinions about DRM.

To make the world of gaming DRM-free, we need to convince top-tier publishers & developers to give us a try with new games, just like they did with classic games. We need to make more case studies for the gaming industry, just like we successfully did back in 2011 with The Witcher 2. It was our first ever 100% DRM-free AAA day-1 release. GOG.com was the 2nd best-selling digital distribution platform worldwide for this title thanks to you guys, despite having regional prices for it. We need more breakthroughs like this to be able to show all the devs and publishers in our industry that DRM-free digital distribution is actually good for their business and their fans. And when I say breakthroughs, I am talking about really kick-ass games, with a potential metacritic score of 85% or more, AA+ and AAA kind of titles.

And this is exactly why we signed those 3 games we told you about last Friday. We believe those 3 games can be massive hits for hardcore gamers, that they can help us spread the DRM-free model among the industry for newer games and we did our best to convince their rights holders to give GOG.com a try. One of those games, as you see already, is Age of Wonders 3. We're planning more titles even beyond these first 3 soon.

Alright, but why is regional pricing needed for those (only 3 so far!) newer games then?

First of all, you have to be aware of an important fact when it comes to newer games: GOG.com cannot really decide what the prices should be. Top-tier developers and publishers usually have contractual obligations with their retail partners that oblige them to offer the game at the same price digitally and in retail. When they don’t have such contractual obligations, they are still encouraged to do so, or else their games might not get any exposure on the shelves in your favorite shops. This will change over time (as digital sales should overtake retail sales in the near future), but as of today, this is still a problem our industry is facing because retail is a big chunk of revenue and there’s nothing GOG.com can do to change that. We need to charge the recommended retail price for the boxed copies of the games in order for developers (or publishers) to either not get sued or at least get their games visible on shelves. You may recall that our sister company CD Projekt RED got sued for that in the past and we don’t want our partners to suffer from that too.

On top of that, you have to know that there are still many top-tier devs and publishers that are scared about DRM-free gaming. They're half-convinced it will make piracy worse, and flat pricing means that we're also asking them to earn less, too. Earn less, you say? Why is that? Well, when we sell a game in the EU or UK, VAT gets deducted from the price before anyone receives any profit. That means we're asking our partners to try out DRM-free gaming and at the same time also earn 19% - 25% less from us. Other stores, such as Steam, price their games regionally and have pricing that's more equitable to developers and publishers. So flat pricing + DRM-Free is something many devs and publishers simply refuse. Can you blame them? The best argument we can make to convince a publisher or developer to try DRM-Free gaming is that it earns money. Telling them to sacrifice income while they try selling a game with no copy protection is not a way to make that argument.

Getting back to those 3 new upcoming games coming up. The first one is Age of Wonders 3, which you can pre-order right now on GOG.com. The next 2 ones will be Divine Divinity: Original Sin and The Witcher 3. We’re very excited to offer those games DRM-free worldwide and we hope you’ll love them.

Still, we know some countries are really being screwed with regional pricing (Western Europe, UK, Australia) and as mentioned above, we’ll do our very best, for every release of a new game, to convince our partners to offer something special for the gamers living there.

And don’t forget guys: if regional pricing for those few big (as in, “AA+”) new games is a problem for you, you can always wait. In a few months. The game will be discounted on sale, and at 60, 70, or 80% off, the price difference will be minimal indeed. In a few years it will become a classic in its own right, and then we have the possibility to to make it flat-priced anyway (read next!) The choice is always yours. All we are after is to present it to you 100% DRM-free. We are sure you will make the best choice for yourself, and let others enjoy their own freedom to make choices as well.

So, what is going to happen with classic games then?

Classic content accounts for about 80% of our catalog, so yes, this is a super important topic. We've mentioned here above that we can’t control prices for new games, but we do have a lot of influence when it comes to classic games. GOG.com is the store that made this market visible and viable digitally, and we're the ones who established the prices we charge. We believe that we have a good record to argue for fair pricing with our partners.

So let's talk about the pricing for classics that we're shooting for. For $5.99 classics, we would like to make the games 3.49 GBP, 4.49 EUR, 199 RUB, and $6.49 AUD. For $9.99 classics, our targets are 5.99 GBP, 7.49 EUR, 349 RUB, and $10.99 AUD. This is what we’ve got in mind at the moment. We’ll do our best to make that happen, and we think it will. How? Well, we have made our partners quite happy with GOG.com's sales for years - thanks to you guys :). We have created a global, legal, successful digital distribution market of classics for them. This market didn't exist 5 years ago. By (re)making all those games compatible with modern operating systems for MAC and PC, we've made forgotten games profitable again. When it comes to classic games, we can tell them that we know more about this market than anyone. :) Being retrogaming freaks ourselves, we know that 5.99 EUR or GBP is crazy expensive for a classic game (compared to 5.99 USD). We have always argued that classic games only sell well if they have reasonable prices. Unfair regional pricing equals piracy and that’s the last thing anybody wants.

What’s next?

We will do our very best to make all of the above happen. This means three things:

First, we will work to make our industry go DRM-free in the future for both classic and new games (that’s our mission!).

Second, we will fight hard to have an attractive offer for those AA+ new games for our European, British and Australian users, despite regional pricing that we have to stick to.

Third, we will switch to fair local pricing for classic games, as I mentioned above.

TheEnigmaticT earlier mentioned that he would eat his hat if we ever brought DRM to GOG.com. I'm going to go one step further: by the end of this year, I'm making the promise that we will have converted our classic catalog over to fair regional pricing as outlined above. If not, we'll set up a record a video of some horrible public shaming for me, TheEnigmaticT, and w0rma. In fact, you know what? Feel free to make suggestions below for something appropriate (but also safe enough that we won't get the video banned on YouTube) so you feel that we're motivated to get this done quickly. I'll pick one that's scary enough from the comments below and we'll let you know which one we're sticking to.

I hope that this explanation has helped ease your worry a bit and help you keep your faith in GOG.com as a place that's different, awesome, and that always fights for what's best for gamers. If you have any questions, comments or ideas, feel free to address them to us below and TheEnigmaticT and I will answer them to the best of our abilities tomorrow. We hear you loud and clear, so please do continue sharing your feedback with us. At the end of the day GOG.com is your place; without you guys it would just be a website where a few crazy people from Europe talk about old games. :)

I end many of my emails with this, but there's rarely a time to use it more appropriately than here:

“Best DRM-free wishes,

Guillaume Rambourg,
(TheFrenchMonk)
Managing Director -- GOG.com”
avatar
AstralWanderer: snip
Regarding point 1, I don't agree, day 1 sales are important and if something goes wrong is the developers's blame, not GOG's. Why would I blame GOG if the game is full of bugs? I can manualy update the game if there is an update on GOG.

Regarding point 3, by price fixing you mean selling a game at 40$ in US and 80$ in Australia or selling a digital game at a higher price than one in a physical store and giving discounts very often?

Point 4: the regional prices of AOW 3 are those impose by the developer/publisher. GOG can either sell at those prices or not at all.

Instead of GOG selling AOW 3 (and the future new games) with regional prices what would you like instead:
a) GOG not selling the game at all
b) GOG only selling the game at the right price (39,99$) but only in some regions (USA, Canada etc) and not at all in the rest of the world
c) GOG selling the game flat priced in all the world but at the higher price (54,59$ I think)
d) other
avatar
GabiMoro: Why would I blame GOG if the game is full of bugs?
Because they sell a game full of bugs on their platform?
avatar
TheEnigmaticT: There are a variety of elements we use to select games. Games with a MobyRank or MobyScore of over 70 are likely prospects.

[...]

Wishlist is the next factor we look at...

[...]

So the only game with enough votes on the wishlist to stand out from the pack doesn't have a good enough MobyScore where it's a hot prospect. Now we could evaluate the game further and see if it just didn't get a fair shake in the reviews, but none of the 12 games I pseudo-randomly grabbed are the kind of thing that we would evaluate and immediately say, "Yes, that's going to sell enough copies that we can afford to go through the acquisition process."
I guess this one must be the exception to the rule:
http://www.gog.com/wishlist/games/harvester (+820 votes)
http://www.mobygames.com/game/dos/harvester (MobyRank 61 - MobyScore 3.5)

I'm sure it has its place in gaming history but it definitely doesn't sound like a good old game.
avatar
GabiMoro: Why would I blame GOG if the game is full of bugs?
avatar
mobutu: Because they sell a game full of bugs on their platform?
doing that is like blowing up and having a fit at a waitress in a restaurant because the chef didn't cook your meat and your salad doesn't have any dressing.
avatar
Lemon_Curry: I guess this one must be the exception to the rule:
http://www.gog.com/wishlist/games/harvester (+820 votes)
http://www.mobygames.com/game/dos/harvester (MobyRank 61 - MobyScore 3.5)

I'm sure it has its place in gaming history but it definitely doesn't sound like a good old game.
It does sound like a game I would play. And that I would buy if comes out next week.
avatar
mobutu: Because they sell a game full of bugs on their platform?
avatar
jazmyselfandi: doing that is like blowing up and having a fit at a waitress in a restaurant because the chef didn't cook your meat and your salad doesn't have any dressing.
If I ordered a "cooked meat and salad dressing" from the menu, yea I have all the right in the world to complain to the waitress if i receive something else
Post edited March 02, 2014 by mobutu
avatar
GabiMoro: Why would I blame GOG if the game is full of bugs?
avatar
mobutu: Because they sell a game full of bugs on their platform?
Well, if the bugs are very important (the game doesn't start at all, the image is blured, etc) then yes, GOG is also to blame for nut running the game at least once.
But if there are dozens ot bugs like "casting magic arrow does 10 damage instead of 15" and "the catedral is built in 3 turns instead of 4" why should I blame GOG?
avatar
Telika: It does sound like a game I would play. And that I would buy if comes out next week.
Some of the reviews have certainly piqued my curiosity... though I still doubt the game is worth my time.
Post edited March 02, 2014 by Lemon_Curry
high rated
The thing that seems strange to me is that GOG.com is not the only store that is switching to regional pricing. Both the Humble Store and Green Man Gaming have started offering regional prices within a few short weeks of each other.

In my mind there are a few potential reasons for this (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong):

(1) The Domino Effect. One retailer switches to regional pricing, and their competitors view them as gaining some advantage, so another switches, and another switches, and so on, like one domino hitting the next.

(2) Something has recently changed in the market that is forcing digital retailers to switch to regional pricing. The most likely cause of this external pressure would be publishers, who in turn are under pressure from physical retail due to their contractual obligations.

(3) A combination of (1) and (2).

In the first case, it could be argued that GOG.com did not have to switch if they felt they could still compete effectively in the market place by retaining a flat pricing model. Although other retailers have started to offer 'classic' games in their catalogue, they are still not quite offering what GOG.com is offering.

In the second case, however, you could speculate that GOG.com may have been faced with an ultimatum from publishers - 'either switch to regional pricing, or you can no longer sell our games'. That would have a far greater financial impact, because it would effectively remove some existing games from the catalogue and lead to reduced revenue. The fact that classic games offered by GOG.com are also switching to regional pricing makes this argument more compelling (at least in my mind).

GOG.com have used the argument of offering more games for sale by adopting regional pricing, but the Humble Store said almost exactly the same thing. That seems to be more than a coincidence to me, and it also seems a weaker argument given their current financial successes.

I'm not sure we will ever know the exact reason for this policy change, because I don't think we are getting the whole picture from any of the retailers now adopting the policy.

So where does that leave us as the consumers of this digital media?

As many have pointed out in these comments, we can choose not to buy from GOG.com any more, and switch to other retailers who we feel offer us better 'value' - although there are not many retailers offering their games DRM-Free at the moment. It all comes down to a matter of personal preference, and weighing the pros and cons of what GOG.com will offer from now on:

Pros

- all games (new and old) will still be sold DRM-Free
- classic games will continue to be sold, and modified to work on modern OS (where possible)
- many games will still be offered with extras
- projected prices for classic games will be relatively close to previous flat pricing (apparently within 5%), and remain competitively priced in the market (if they can achieve it)
- games will still go on sale
- games will still not require a client to run, and manual downloads will still be supported

Cons

- people in many regions will now pay more from this site than they had been previously
- people in some regions will still have to pay currency conversion costs
- increasing numbers of brand new games in the catalogue will put more pressure on support, because new games are notorious for requiring frequent patching
- new games invariably have planned DLC, so will be less likely to be offered 'complete' (at least initially)
- preorder bonus content will now be offered, just like other retailers (which may mean exclusion of content in the short term)
- some games may potentially be unavailable in some regions, if rights cannot be secured to sell them there
- there is a future potential for 'region-locking' of content if people start abusing the system

They have also said that they are still assessing whether to continue offering dollars or local currency in some regions, for example, some European countries that do not use the euro as their currency.

These are my personal points, based on the feedback offered by GOG staff in these comments (which I appreciated).

In my view, the pros still have merit, and while they remain, I am still inclined to continue shopping here.

However, there are some things that I believe GOG.com could improve upon:

- show all prices in local currency, and the equivalent in US dollars, on the store page for each game
- show the price excluding VAT on the store page for each game to give customers a clearer view of what they are paying
- show the VAT amount on receipts sent to customers (for the same reason as the previous point)
- include a 'fair price' logo for games where you pay [the same or] less than the US (which is usually the baseline price of a game)
- have clearer and more prominent information on the page for each game regarding whether it is the latest version, and if not, the availability of any additional patches
- clearly indicate if a new game has planned DLC, and additional pricing of such content (if known)
- on the main game browser on the storefront, please include additional filtering options, including 'fair price', DLC, etc.

I believe if some of these things could be implemented, it would give customers a much better view of how they are being charged for games from now on (and potentially alleviate the need for secondary sites, which happened with steamprices.com in relation to Steam). If you remain transparent in what you are offering, you are more likely to retain (and regain) customer trust.

How people view the way the issue of regional pricing has been handled will vary; some will feel outright betrayed, some will be disappointed (like me), others will look forward to the changes. People will have to make up their own minds on how they view GOG.com as company, both now and in the future. For many it will come down to deciding whether they feel GOG.com remains worthy of support, or shopping elsewhere.

Personally, the DRM-Free status of games has always been my primary motivation for shopping here, with pricing being the second. However, I will say that, until recently, I viewed GOG.com as one of the more 'ethical' companies in the game retail market, a view that was supported by their own advertising media. My view has now changed, and now GOG.com is just another digital retailer with some unique selling points. I will continue to buy games here as long as they are DRM-Free and I feel I am getting good value. The day they stop selling DRM-Free is the day I walk away.

Edited: regarding the 'fair price' logo, after NetAndy's point here: http://www.gog.com/forum/general/letter_from_the_md_about_regional_pricing/post4490

Thanks. ;)
Post edited March 02, 2014 by StormHammer
avatar
StormHammer: *snip*
Excellent post. Something has happened in the industry regarding regional pricing, and I wonder if it has to do with publishers and distributors renegotiating contracts for next gen. GOG still has ethics. To write them off for one grievance is unfair imo.
Post edited March 02, 2014 by scampywiak
high rated
avatar
AstralWanderer: snip
avatar
GabiMoro: Regarding point 1, I don't agree, day 1 sales are important and if something goes wrong is the developers's blame, not GOG's. Why would I blame GOG if the game is full of bugs? I can manualy update the game if there is an update on GOG.

Regarding point 3, by price fixing you mean selling a game at 40$ in US and 80$ in Australia or selling a digital game at a higher price than one in a physical store and giving discounts very often?

Point 4: the regional prices of AOW 3 are those impose by the developer/publisher. GOG can either sell at those prices or not at all.

Instead of GOG selling AOW 3 (and the future new games) with regional prices what would you like instead:
a) GOG not selling the game at all
b) GOG only selling the game at the right price (39,99$) but only in some regions (USA, Canada etc) and not at all in the rest of the world
c) GOG selling the game flat priced in all the world but at the higher price (54,59$ I think)
d) other
d) Estimate sales, set a single fair price across all regions that delivers a similar gross profit per sold copy across the board to devs/gog negotiated by gog and the devs/lawyers. If they aren't able to negotiate such a deal, too bad, don't sell out values, continue to grow the userbase and continue to focus on your core values while adding the games that does fit into this model until the point where it is worth for the devs/lawyers to adhere to your values where you can now negotiate the deal needed. It's a long and slow process but it's the one that we the userbase decided to pay for by buying our games here.
avatar
dhundahl: You're neglecting to mention that the conversion fee is already in play with their flat prices, so if it affects the regional prices in your comparison then it probably also should affect the flat prices, shouldn't it? It's only fair to have both prices under the same circumstances, after all.
avatar
PixelBoy: It has no effect, if one has a bank account in US$. Admittedly, this might be the case with a very small number of the users, but still.
Go to your nearest Nordea or Danske bank to ask if it's possible to have such a currency account. I'm 99% certain the answer you will get is "yes".

Buying using a dollar-based account with dollar prices doesn't include any extra fees that I can see (unless there's a credit card transaction fee, which is not related to currency conversations).

You don't even need to have a bank account to pay in dollars. Simply a PayPal account is enough. You can trade, for instance, on eBay and receive payments in dollars regularly.

Again, for most Europeans this is probably unlikely, but that's not even the point here. The point is that it places users in an unequal position, deliberately, on purpose.
I agree that users are placed in an unequal position. I just wanted to notify you that your example is slightly inaccurate in terms of conversion costs since anyone paying a conversion cost for euros are likely also paying a conversion cost for dollars. And yes, I probably could get an account in a different currency but then I'd have the trouble of getting money into that account, wouldn't I? My native currency isn't dollars and at some point a conversion has to happen. I *might* be able to talk a bank into letting me do it on the cheap but I doubt many people go to that trouble unless they really need to do an exchange between their home currency and dollars quite often.

For me personally, however, I'm fairly sure I'd need to be a "bigger" customer to get access to any freebies in Nordea or Danske Bank. They're pretty big here in DK and as a consequence they've got a tendency to utter slimebags at times. Loaded people get massive service. Poor people get a run-around with a bunch of ridiculous "service fees" on top. The bank I'm using is local and the interest I'm getting on the money I don't really have is terrible, but at least they're open about it and they've been easy enough to deal with so far.

In summary, bank staffers are pretty much the new insurance agents in DK. Schemining, conniving, dishonest, self-serving, rhodent-like bastards, or at least that's how I've felt on several occasions. It's not like the staffers are making the rules, though, and not doing as they're told simply results in them getting fired.

avatar
dhundahl: And the conversion fee already makes the flat prices less flat, since Americans get one price and I get that price + conversion fee. So my prices are always going to be higher than what an American gets to pay.
avatar
PixelBoy: You have always had the option of using PayPal, which doesn't include any conversion fees. Of course there may be some fees when you first transfer money to your PayPal account.

But let's assume you are selling some Danish stuff on the Internet, and receive payments to your PayPal account. You even have the option of having the paying party to cover the PayPal fees, in which case whatever you receive as payment comes 100% to your account.

With the still existing GOG system, you will be paying for your games exactly as much as Americans, to the last cent, as long as you use that PayPal balance to pay for your games.

And what about more unique, but yet possible scenarios, such as a person having both American and some European citizenships, thereby having bank accounts and such on both sides of the ocean. If that person, who is a legal American citizen, and with American money, is staying in his equally legal European home country, he has to pay more for the same product than if he was back in his other home country?

With physical items, like bananas, this makes some sense, because the transportation costs are not the same. But with digital items? It doesn't make any sense.
Which is exactly what GOG, too, has been telling us for the last five years.
Yeah, I agree that there are situations where previously one could have avoided the conversion costs and now such people simply get to pay more for no clear reason, though arguably they're actually getting to pay the same as everybody else in whatever country they're in. And why should they get to pay more than such people with dollars? That's not really fair either.

By the way, if only I was selling stuff on the internet. I'd then have my very own personal company and that company would then be buying games (and computer hardware and various other things) as part of the corporate stress relief program. Over time the appreciations on such purchases would drop their value to practically nothing, at which point they can be given away as legacy gifts to the company staff (all one of them), who would then have to pay income tax of a company gift with a largely symbolic value, which adds up to not all that much. And because my company had bought the game, I'd be able to deduct the VAT paid for it against the VAT collected from my sales. All in all, I'd come out well ahead, I think. Well, if only, right? :-)

Anyway, I agree that there's nothing inherently obvious about charging more for the same thing just because you move into some different arbitrarily defined geographic area. It's not particularly fair to do that. However, as long as the change in price is something that by and large matches what you'd previously have paid in conversion costs then there's no effective change of price. Before you paid GOG and a bank, and now you're only paying GOG, who are in turn paying their bank to convert all these currencies. The difference to me, as a customer, is insignificant. And pending on how the exchange rates move, this might actually give you as much as a 5% saving on the conversion on top of not paying any conversion costs.

Unfortunately it doesn't work out that well for people who are getting a conversion price bump and still have to pay conversion costs. I'm not sure what GOG will do about that and I'm not sure they're sure yet. It feels to me like this whole "regional fair pricing of the classics" thing is a work in progress, which means answers will come in time. I'm no more fond of getting the short end of the stick than anyone else, but even with both the price bump and the conversion cost, the deals here at GOG give me value for my money. Less value than before, obviously, but still value.

Personally, I'd prefer it if they stuck with dollar costs until they pick up the actual local currency. If they're using dollar costs now then surely they could keep doing that for the classics until a local currency becomes an option. The regional pricing on new release titles is a different story and it might look slightly messy that some games are in euro and others in dollars, but it wouldn't bother me much, though I'm sure there are all kinds of design principles against that sort of "messy messages".
avatar
StormHammer: The thing that seems strange to me is that GOG.com is not the only store that is switching to regional pricing. Both the Humble Store and Green Man Gaming have started offering regional prices within a few short weeks of each other.

In my mind there are a few potential reasons for this (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong):

(1) The Domino Effect. One retailer switches to regional pricing, and their competitors view them as gaining some advantage, so another switches, and another switches, and so on, like one domino hitting the next.

(2) Something has recently changed in the market that is forcing digital retailers to switch to regional pricing. The most likely cause of this external pressure would be publishers, who in turn are under pressure from physical retail due to their contractual obligations.

(3) A combination of (1) and (2).

In the first case, it could be argued that GOG.com did not have to switch if they felt they could still compete effectively in the market place by retaining a flat pricing model. Although other retailers have started to offer 'classic' games in their catalogue, they are still not quite offering what GOG.com is offering.

In the second case, however, you could speculate that GOG.com may have been faced with an ultimatum from publishers - 'either switch to regional pricing, or you can no longer sell our games'. That would have a far greater financial impact, because it would effectively remove some existing games from the catalogue and lead to reduced revenue. The fact that classic games offered by GOG.com are also switching to regional pricing makes this argument more compelling (at least in my mind).
Excellent post. I agree that option two would seem more likely. Though if that is what's happening, why are we getting all this spin? If publishers pressure Gog and other retailers, why not either tell us that that is the reason or even better report publishers to the authorities because that would clearly be illegal?

Edit: And if the publishers are putting pressure on retailers, I think that would be even more reason not to buy the games affected by regional pricing.
Post edited March 02, 2014 by silentbob1138
avatar
AstralWanderer: SVN versions of DosBox can run Win95/98 which in turn can handle those games relying on WinG. How to Install Win98se with 3dfx driver in Dosbox should be a good place to start...
Windowsception! :D
avatar
dhundahl: Win7 64-bit version can't run 16 bit applications either, at least not natively. And Win XP isn't a good option at this point because of the memory limitations. But I remember toying with MS Virtual PC and a free WIn98 image way back, and I'm pretty sure that should solve the issue of 16 bit. Obviously it wouldn't be a solution for GOG and it's a very impractical way to run games, but I did manage to get some really old DOS games to run that way.
avatar
NetAndy: I once tried something like that and I ran into a problem. The Virtual PC or whatever I was using had wrong videocard therefore the game did not run. Not sure if it was 16bit game, but it was game that did not run on Win7 64bit for some reason.
Yeah, that's generally the problem with virtual PCs. In order to be virtual, they can't really let the virtual PC get direct access to the graphics card, so instead they're using various 2d junk that can't actually run games worth a damn. And Virtual PC in particular is no help at this since it's meant for usability purposes (which requires little to no 3d) rather than to play legacy games. Still works for DOS for the most part and also for 2d games, but every now and again a game requires a bit more. And then there are those games that came with their own video and sound drivers, which you'd then have to select in some setup menu, and tough luck if your hardware didn't work with one of their predetermined profiles. :-)